A fact from Israel Putnam Monument appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 November 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
I will review this one, comments to follow in next few days. Zawed (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments as follows:
The lead seems a little brief given the length of the article.
Expanded lead with additional information from the article.
In "Background": a brick structure covered by a large stone that bore an... "large stone slab" (slab is used later so this gives a bit of consistency).
Fixed.
In "Background": a push to erect another monument to Israel in the 1850s,... use surname here, not given name.
Fixed
In "Creation": Suggest breaking the first paragraph, it is quite big. The second is not quite as large but could be split too.
Split the first paragraph as naturally as I felt I could.
In "Creation": the editor of the Windham County Standard just checking, do we have a name for the editor, since he is mentioned in the next sentence?
Yes, added name for the editor.
In "Creation": the sentence regarding the casting of the statue seems a little out of place, perhaps it should go in the design section. Actually now that I have read the design section it already states the casting company so perhaps it should be deleted.
Deleted.
In "Dedication": I don't want to screw up your structure preference but should the dedication section go after the design section?
Coming back to this after doing the Burnside review, scratch this comment - it clearly is your preferred structure. Also having thought about it more, the structure probably allows you to deal with post-installation changes to the statue etc... without disrupting the chronological flow. Zawed (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In "Dedication": at the end of which the statue was unveiled by John D. Putnam, suggest "at the end of which it was unveiled by John D. Putnam," (statue is already used in the sentence)
Done.
In "Dedication": the second paragraph - the first sentence is effectively duplicating the content of the final sentence of the design section. Also perhaps the final sentence be moved to the analysis section?
Rearranged some of the sentences to remove duplication.
In "Design": suggesting bringing the two final sentences of the section together.
Possibly addressed this in previous comment.
Although it is likely to be PD, I think the images will require a tag for the statue itself e.g. Washington statute
Addressed similar comment in the Burnside review, but just now seeing the example with the Washington statue. Like I said earlier, if this edit is necessary I can add the PD template ASAP.
Is there an oclc number for the Jenkins and Quinby sources? Publisher for Quinby?
Unfortunately, as in the Burnside review, I was not able to find much information for Quinby, including the publisher, but I have updated with ISBN and oclc information.
What order are the sources, I can't quite figure them out?
It's supposed to be in alphabetical order, but with the switching between sources that state their authors and those that don't, I can see how it may be a bit unintuitive. Let me know if you have any recommendations for reorganizing.
That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zawed just wanted to ping you and say that I have made some edits to the page to address some of your comments in this review. Thank you for beginning this review, and if there are any further comments, questions, or concerns, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to pass this as a GA as I believe that this meets the necessary criteria. I do think it would be preferably to add a PD tag for the sculpture in the images, just to head off any possible issues in that respect. I don't see the need to hold up promotion while that is being done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
